Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-timing] reconsider name of frames() timing function

I'm strongly opposed to trying to "harmonize" this with the content-distribution keywords. It's extremely non-intuitive in practice, imo, particularly since it means you're distributing the *jumps*, not the values; the entire point of frames() is that it's more intuitive in some cases to think of the values.  (And steps() can be interpreted as N specifying the number of jumps *or* values, both in its name and its operation)

Basically I don't think talking about jumps is ever the intuitive thing to do.  At least in my mind, it's never what I'm considering when dealing with transitions, except possibly in the simplest cases (like, I might think "I want this to transition in one jump", and then decide whether I want the jump to happen at the start, middle, or end; but as soon as I'm talking about more than that, I want to think in terms of how many values I see in the animation).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-312334433 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 18:00:55 UTC